One-year outcomes of the ARTISAN-SNM study with the Axonics System for the treatment of urinary urgency incontinence

Neurourology and Urodynamics. 2020;1–7. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/nau

|

O R I G I N A L C L I N I C A L A R T I C L E

One

‐year outcomes of the ARTISAN‐SNM study with the

Axonics System for the treatment of urinary urgency

incontinence

Kevin Benson

|

Rebecca McCrery

|

Chris Taylor

|

Osvaldo Padron

|

Bertil Blok

|

Stefan de Wachter

|

Andrea Pezzella

|

Jennifer Gruenenfelder

|

Mahreen Pakzad

|

Marie

‐Aimee Perrouin‐Verbe

|

Philip Van Kerrebroeck

|

Jeffrey Mangel

|

Kenneth Peters

|

Michael Kennelly

|

Andrew Shapiro

|

Una Lee

|

Craig Comiter

|

Margaret Mueller

|

Howard Goldman

|

Felicia Lane

1

Sanford Hospital, Sioux Falls, South Dakota

2

Adult and Pediatric Urology and Urogynecology, Omaha, Nebraska

3_{Taylor Surgical Arts, Harrison, Arkansas} 4_{Florida Urology Partners, Tampa, Florida}

5_{Department of Urology, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, The Netherlands} 6_{Department of Urology, University Hospital Antwerpen, Edegem, Belgium} 7_{Southern Urogynecology, West Columbia, South Carolina}

8_{Orange County Urology Associates, Laguna Hills, California}

9_{Department of Urology, University College London Hospital, Marylebone, London, UK} 10

Department of Urology, CHU de Nantes Hotel Dieu, Nantes, France

11

Department of Urology, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, The Netherlands

12

MetroHealth, Cleveland, Ohio

13

Beaumont Health, Royal Oak, Michigan

14

Carolinas Healthcare System Charlotte, North Carolina

15_{Chesapeake Urology Research Associates, Owings Mills, Maryland} 16_{Virginia Mason, Seattle, Washington}

17_{Stanford University, Palo Alto, California} 18_{Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois} 19_{Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio} 20_{University of California, Irvine, California}

Correspondence

Kevin Benson, Sanford Hospital, Sioux Falls, SD 57105.

Email:kevinbensonfpmrs@gmail.com

Abstract

Aims: Sacral neuromodulation (SNM) is a guideline‐recommended treatment

for voiding dysfunction including urgency, urge incontinence, and

-This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution‐NonCommercial License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes.

Methods: A total of 129 eligible UUI patients were treated. All participants were implanted with a quadripolar tined lead and neurostimulator in a single proce-dure. Efficacy data were collected using a 3‐day bladder diary, a validated quality of life questionnaire (ICIQ‐OABqol), and a participant satisfaction questionnaire. Therapy responders were defined as participants with ≥50% reduction in UUI episodes compared to baseline. Data were analyzed on all 129 participants. Results: At 1 year, 89% of the participants were therapy responders. The average UUI episodes per day reduced from 5.6 ± 0.3 at baseline to 1.4 ± 0.2. Participants experienced an overall clinically meaningful improvement of

34 points on the ICIQ‐OABqol questionnaire. All study participants (100%)

were able to recharge their device at 1 year, and 96% of participants reported that the frequency and duration of recharging was acceptable. There were no serious device‐related adverse events.

Conclusions: The Axonics System is safe and effective at 1 year, with 89% of participants experiencing clinically and statistically significant improvements in UUI symptoms.

K E Y W O R D S

clinical trial, implantable neurostimulator, overactive bladder, sacral neuromodulation, urinary urgency incontinence

1

|

I N T R O D U C T I O N

The Axonics System® provides sacral neuromodulation (SNM) therapy for the treatment of overactive bladder, nonobstructive urinary retention, and fecal incontinence. With an approved functional life of at least 15 years, the Axonics System is the first rechargeable SNM system available for use in the United States (Figure1). The Axonics System is designed to last approximately three times longer than the non‐rechargeable SNM system, which needs surgi-cal replacements at the end of battery life.1The prolonged battery life and reduced number of device replacements with the Axonics System is expected to offer significant ad-vantages to patients, physicians, and the healthcare system by reducing surgical risks while providing significant cost savings.2

In addition, the Axonics System is approved for full‐ body magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans. Histori-cally, patients needing MRI of the body either declined or were not offered SNM therapy and existing SNM patients needing MRI of the body had to have the device

surgically explanted or forgo this important diagnostic tool.3In addition to the long‐lived nature of this device, full‐body MRI conditional safety is a significant benefit for this patient population.

The ARTISAN‐SNM study is a single‐arm, prospective, multi‐center, pivotal study that was designed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the Axonics System for the treatment of urinary urgency incontinence (UUI). Six‐month results showed a favorable safety and efficacy profile for the Axonics System as well as clinically meaningful improvements in quality of life (QoL).4 This manuscript reports results at 1‐year follow‐up.

2

|

M E T H O D S

The ARTISAN‐SNM study protocol was approved by Ethics Committees at all study sites, and all study parti-cipants gave informed consent before study enrollment. Detailed study methods have been previously published4 (ClinicalTrials.gov#NCT03327948).

All eligible participants were implanted with the Axonics neurostimulator and quadripolar tined lead in a single procedure. Fluoroscopic guidance was used to implant the tined lead along the S3 (preferred) or S4 sacral nerve root following SNM best practices published by the International Continence Society (ICS).5A positive response on a minimum of two electrodes at less than 4 mA was required to proceed with full implant, and none of the study participants undergoing the surgery failed this criterion. Patients were programmed to the optimal settings primarily based on intraoperative motor responses and postoperative sensory responses.

Postoperatively, participants were instructed to

charge their device every 1 to 2 weeks after implant. This was accomplished using a wireless charging device that is placed on the skin over the implanted neurostimulator and held in place using a belt. The recharging process has been detailed previously,4,6and details on ease of use and acceptability of the charging experience are reported in the Results section.

Efficacy data were collected using a consecutive 3‐day voiding diary, health‐related quality of life (QoL) questionnaire (ICIQ‐OABqol), and a participant satisfaction questionnaire. Bowel symptoms, specifi-cally targeting accidental bowel leakage, were also captured using the Cleveland Clinic Florida Fecal Incontinence Score (CCF‐FIS). All adverse events (AEs) were tracked, analyzed, and reviewed by a data safety monitoring board.

Participants were considered therapy responders if

they had a ≥50% reduction in UUI episodes on their

voiding diary at follow‐up compared to baseline. The primary efficacy outcome is the therapy responder rate for all implanted participants (as‐treated group). Partici-pants with missing data at follow‐up visits were con-servatively assumed to be therapy nonresponders.

Analyses were also performed in the “Test Responders”

cohort, defined as participants who were therapy responders at 1 month. These analyses are performed to

allow comparison with the current clinical literature, where efficacy results are typically reported only for those participants that have a positive clinical response during an external trial period.

In addition to the therapy responder rate analyses, data analyses included the absolute change and percent change for the number of UUI episodes, the number of large UUI episodes, outcomes of the QoL questionnaire, and participant satisfaction questionnaire results. All efficacy results for urinary incontinence are assessed using urge incontinence episodes only. A conservative approach was taken to analyze missing or exited parti-cipants as therapy failures for measures on the diary, QoL, and satisfaction. Recharging experience is reported based on available data (ie, excludes missing or exited participants).

3

|

R E S U L T S

3.1

|

Study participants

A total of 129 participants met the IE criteria and were implanted with the Axonics System in a single procedure. There were no intraoperative test failures. The average age of participants was 59.3 years old (21‐86 years) and 98% were female. At baseline, participants had 5.6 ± 0.3

(average ± standard error) UUI episodes per day.

Detailed demographics and baseline characteristics are shown in Table S1.

Over 96% of the participants (124 of 129) completed the 1‐year visit. Five participants, including three Test Responders, exited before the 1‐year visit (details in Safety section). An as‐treated analysis was performed for symptom‐specific measures, where participants

F I G U R E 2 Therapy responder rates in all implanted

participants at different follow‐up visits post‐implant. UUI therapy

response is defined as≥50% reduction in UUI episodes at follow‐up

as compared to baseline. As‐treated analysis is presented, where

explanted or exited participants are considered as treatment failures. UUI, urinary urgency incontinence

F I G U R E 1 The FDA‐approved Axonics System includes a rechargeable, miniaturized implantable neurostimulator that is

~5cc in volume and has a 15‐year approved life in United States,

Europe, Canada, and Australia. In addition, the Axonics System

unavailable at follow‐up are considered treatment failures.

3.2

|

Therapy responder rate and UUI

symptom reduction

Eighty‐nine percent of the study participants (115 of 129)

were therapy responders at 1 year (ie, had ≥50%

reduction in UUI symptoms as compared to baseline; Figure 2A). Of the 129 participants, 113 (88%) were Test

Responders at 1‐month. Of the Test Responders, 94%

(106 of 113) were therapy responders at the 1‐year follow‐ up. A consistent responder rate was seen from 1‐month to 1‐year visits, showing sustained efficacy of the therapy.

In all implanted participants (n = 129), the average UUI episodes per day reduced from 5.6 ± 0.3 at baseline to 1.4 ± 0.2 at 1 year (P < .0001), which represents a 75%

reduction in UUI episodes (Figure 3A). Seventy‐seven

percent of the therapy responders (88 of 115) had a greater than 75% reduction in UUI episodes, including

29% of responders that were completely dry (achieved complete urinary continence) (Figure3B).

Eighty‐one study participants had at least one large leak per day at baseline as reported on the 3‐day bladder diary. In this group, the average large leaks per day reduced from 1.6 ± 0.2 at baseline to 0.2 ± 0.1 at 1 year (P < .0001), which represents an 87.5% reduction in large leak episodes. Seventy four percent of the participants with large leaks at baseline (60 of 81) had a 100% reduction in the large leak episodes, and 83% had≥75% reduction in large leak episodes.

3.3

|

Quality of life and therapy

satisfaction

At 1 year, study participants averaged a 34.4‐point im-provement on the health‐related quality of life (HRQL) measure of the ICIQ‐OABqol questionnaire (P < .0001), a clinically meaningful improvement as compared to baseline7(Figure4). Improvements in QoL were seen on

F I G U R E 3 Symptom reduction in all implanted participants (n = 129) at 3 months, 6 months, and 1 year. A, Average number of UUI episodes in all implanted participants at baseline, 3 months, 6 months and 1 year. B, Magnitude of UUI episode reduction in therapy responders (n = 115) at 1‐year follow‐up. Error bars represent standard error. *P < .0001 compared to baseline. UUI, urinary urgency incontinence

F I G U R E 4 Quality of life scores in all implanted participants as assessed by ICIQ‐OABqol in an as‐treated analysis. Health‐related QoL (HRQL) composite score and all subscale scores show clinically and statistically significant improvements compared to baseline (P < .0001 for all comparisons, n = 129). Error bars represent standard error. All scores exceeded the minimally important difference of 10 points,

all domains of the ICIQ‐OABqol subscales, with im-provements of 39.3 points on Concern, 38.6 points on Coping, 32.6 points on Sleep, and 22.4 points on Social Interaction.

In addition, 93% of the 129 participants responded as being “satisfied” with their rechargeable SNM therapy, and 92% responded that they would undergo the therapy again (Figure5A).

3.4

|

Recharging experience

At 1 year, 100% of participants reported being able to recharge their system, and 89% of participants found it “easy” to recharge the system (Figure5B).

At 1 year, 86% of participants (107 of 124) reported recharging their system for less than 1 hour, and 95% of participants reported going at least 7 days between recharging sessions. The duration and frequency of

recharging was reported as “acceptable” by 96% of

participants (Figure5B).

3.5

|

Additional outcome measures:

urgency, urgency frequency, and fecal

incontinence

Study participants also experienced reductions in overall urgency episodes (ie, urgent voids and/or leaks), urgency frequency, and fecal incontinence symptoms. At baseline, participants had 10.6 ± 0.3 urgency episodes per day which reduced to 7.4 ± 0.3 at 1 year (P < .0001).

Of the 129 participants, 103 had urinary frequency defined as≥8 voids per day. These participants averaged

11.6 ± 0.3 voids per day at baseline, which reduced to 8.9 ± 0.2 voids per day at the 1‐year follow‐up (P < .0001). Of the 129 participants, 42 (33%) had fecal incon-tinence at baseline, as determined by a score of 6 or

greater on CCF‐FIS.8 _{The average CCF‐FIS score at}

baseline was 9.3 ± 0.5 and was reduced to 3.9 ± 0.6 at 1 year (Figure S1A; P < .0001). In addition, at 1 year 55 participants self‐identified and reported their level of satisfaction with therapy for their fecal incontinence

symptoms. Ninety‐one percent of these participants

(50 of 55 participants) reported being satisfied with the SNM therapy for their bowel symptoms (Figure S1B).

3.6

|

Safety

A total of 15 device‐related AEs were reported across 14 participants (10.8% of participants) at 1 year, with 10 AEs being reported before the 6‐month follow‐up. The most frequent AE was discomfort due to stimulation, which accounted for seven events in seven (5.4%) participants, all of which were resolved with repro-gramming. One patient (0.8%) experienced some dis-comfort/heating near the charging area, which was resolved by retraining the patient on a proper charging technique.

Two events of pain at the neurostimulator site (1.6%) occurred, both of which resolved spontaneously. Two lead revisions were performed in two patients, one for a lead migration (0.8%) and another for high impedances (and suspected lead fracture, 0.8%). The lead revisions resulted in the successful return of efficacy in both patients.

A total of five participants exited before 1 year; three of whom exited before the 6‐months visit. Reasons for

F I G U R E 5 Participant satisfaction with therapy and recharging experience at 1 year. A, Participant satisfaction with SNM therapy and

likeliness of undergoing therapy again for the same outcome. The as‐treated analysis is performed in all implanted participants (n = 129),

with missing participants conservatively considered as having negative responses. B, Ease of charging and acceptability of charging duration and frequency. Analyses performed in available participants at 1 year (n = 124). SNM, sacral neuromodulation

This study represents the 1‐year safety and efficacy out-comes of the Axonics System for the treatment of UUI. The consistency of the results out to 1‐year supports the durability of the therapy as well as an excellent safety profile. The as‐treated 89% therapy response rate at 1 year is one of the highest reported in the literature and was calculated using the most conservative methodology. In addition, the magnitude of the therapy response, with 29% of participants being dry and 77% achieving ≥75% improvement, far exceeds the traditional definition

of success at 50% improvement. The ARTISAN‐SNM

therapy response rate was calculated in all implanted participants, including the initial therapy failures and participants that exited the study. This contrasts with the InSite study where the therapy response rate was eval-uated in only participants available for evaluation at follow‐up and excluded participants who were initial therapy failures and participants who exited the study.

As reported previously,4we hypothesize that several factors may contribute to the high therapy responder rate. A recent study by Adelstein et al9 (2019) showed that high trial success rates (88%) can be achieved by optimal lead placement which includes the use of the curved stylet. The adoption of best practice techni-ques5,10,11 for optimal lead placement undoubtedly con-tributed to the success in this study as evidenced by the 88% responder rate at 1 month. The durability of the response from 1 month to 1 year may also be attributed in part to the additional features of the rechargeable system, including the use of constant current stimulation and the easy to use, intuitive patient remote control. Future comparative studies are needed to evaluate the specific contribution of these additional factors on short‐term and long‐term efficacy.

Although this study was not designed to evaluate the efficacy of the Axonics System in patients with fecal in-continence, 1/3 of the study cohort reported suffering from this condition. Based on our questionnaire data, participants had a reduction in the CCF‐FIS from 9.3 at baseline down to 3.9 at 1‐year. Recent data suggest that a reduction to a score <9 correlates to an important im-provement in patients’ quality of life.8

The Axonics System is the first rechargeable SNM system with an approved device life of 15 years or longer. The long life of the Axonics System is made possible by

and deep brain stimulation systems which have shown high satisfaction, including 85% to 90% of patients preferring or recommending rechargeable devices.12‐14

At 1 year, the safety profile of the ARTISAN‐SNM study remained excellent. There have been no un-anticipated or serious device or procedure‐related AEs. Most of the device‐related AEs occurred within the first 6 months (63%), with only 37% of AEs occurring between 6 and 12 months. As previously reported, there was a <1% infection rate which is one of the lowest reported in the SNM literature. The low infection rate may be attri-butable to the protocol requirements designed for

infec-tion preveninfec-tion4 and smaller pocket size. A notable

aspect of the safety results of this study is that there have been no surgical interventions for pain at the neuro-stimulator site. This contrasts with the Medtronic InSite study where 7% of participants reported pain at their neurostimulator site, of which 50% had to undergo

sur-gical revision or explant. In the ARTISAN‐SNM study,

the overall surgical intervention rate remained low at six participants (4.6%), two of which were initial non-responders that were explanted due to continued lack of efficacy. The 1‐year safety data for the Axonics System is reassuring and consistent with other reports of the safety of SNM.

Having a safe and effective treatment option for pa-tients suffering from UUI and OAB is important given the recent JAMA article linking the risk of dementia and exposure to anticholinergic medications.15The arti-cle adds to a growing body of evidence highlighting the importance of reducing exposure to anticholinergic drugs especially in middle‐age and older adults, which corre-lates to the population of OAB/UUI sufferers. A long‐ lived, rechargeable SNM system provides a safe and effective alternative to using anticholinergics for the treatment of OAB/UUI.

The strengths of this study include the conservative data analysis methods, which provide an objective and robust measure of therapy response in all patients trea-ted. In addition, the collection of recharging usability data provides insight into the patient charging experi-ence, showing high participant satisfaction. Study lim-itations include that this was a nonrandomized study, with no comparator or placebo arm. However, given that

SNM is a widely accepted treatment with well‐known

In addition, the majority of the study participants were female, potentially limiting the generalizability of the findings. However, given that UUI/OAB is more pre-valent in female participants than males,16,17 this was expected. It should also be noted that another study with the same device (RELAX‐OAB) had a higher percentage of males (25%) and showed that the therapy worked equally well for the male population.18

5

|

C O N C L U S I O N

The ARTISAN‐SNM study demonstrates that the Axonics System provides sustained, long‐term, safe and effica-cious outcomes in patients with urgency urinary incon-tinence. At 1‐year post‐implant, clinically meaningful improvements in patient quality of life and high rates of satisfaction with the therapy and the recharging experience were achieved.

O R C I D

Kevin Benson http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9512-7431

Bertil Blok http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9354-7395

Una Lee http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1128-5083

Craig Comiter http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9921-601X

R E F E R E N C E S

1. Jacobs SA, Lane FL, Osann KE, Noblett KL. Randomized prospective crossover study of interstim lead wire placement with curved versus straight stylet. Neurourol Urodyn. 2014;

33(5):488‐492.

2. Noblett KL, Dmochowski RR, Vasavada SP, Garner AM, Liu S, et al. Cost profiles and budget impact of rechargeable versus

non‐rechargeable sacral neuromodulation devices in the

treatment of overactive bladder syndrome. Neurourol Urodyn.

2017;36(3):727‐733.

3. Lloyd JC, Gill BC, Pizarro‐Berdichevsky J, Goldman HB.

Re-moval of sacral nerve stimulation devices for magnetic re-sonance imaging: what happens next? Neuromodulation. 2017;

20(8):836‐840.

4. McCrery R, Lane F, Benson K, et al. Treatment of urinary

ur-gency incontinence using a rechargeable SNM system: 6‐month

results of the ARTISAN‐SNM study. J Urol. 2020;203(1):185‐192.

5. Goldman HB, Lloyd JC, Noblett KL, Carey MP, Castaño Botero JC, et al. International continence society best practice statement for use of sacral neuromodulation. Neurourol Urodyn. 2018;37(5):

1823‐1848.

6. Elterman DS. The novel Axonics® rechargeable sacral neuro-modulation system: procedural and technical impressions from an initial North American experience. Neurourol Urodyn. 2018;

37(S2):S1‐S8.

7. Noblett K, Siegel S, Mangel J, et al. Results of a prospective, multicenter study evaluating quality of life, safety, and efficacy of sacral neuromodulation at twelve months in subjects with

symptoms of overactive bladder. Neurourol Urodyn. 2016;35:

246‐251.

8. Richard N, Hudson M, Gyger G, Baron M, Sutton E, et al. Clinical correlates of faecal incontinence in systemic sclerosis: identifying

therapeutic avenues. Rheumatology. 2017;56(4):581‐588.

9. Adelstein SA, Lee W, Gioia K, et al. Outcomes in a con-temporary cohort undergoing sacral neuromodulation using optimized lead placement technique. Neurourol Urodyn. 2019;

38(6):1595‐1601.

10. Matzel KE, Chartier‐Kastler E, Knowles CH, et al. Sacral

neuromodulation: standardized electrode placement technique.

Neuromodulation. 2017;20(8):816‐824.

11. Vaganée D, Kessler TM, Van de Borne S, De Win G, De Wachter S. Sacral neuromodulation using the standardized tined lead implantation technique with a curved vs a straight

stylet: 2‐year clinical outcomes and sensory responses to lead

stimulation. BJU Int. 2019;123(5A):E7‐E13.

12. Harries AM, Major S, Sandhu M, Honey CR. Rechargeable

internal neural stimulators—is there a problem with efficacy?

Neuromodulation. 2011;15:214‐218.

13. Sciacca S, Smith JS, Akram H, Asim A, Matharu M, Watkins L. Rechargeable occipital nerve stimulator systems: a patient

sa-tisfaction study. Br J Neurosurg. 2014;28:645‐649.

14. Waln O, Jimenez‐Shahed J. Rechargeable DBS IPGs in

move-ment disorders: patient satisfaction and conversion parameters.

Neuromodulation. 2014;17:425‐430.

15. Coupland CAC, Hill T, Dening T, Morriss R, Moore M,

Hippisley‐Cox J. Anticholinergic drug exposure and the risk of

dementia: a nested case‐control study. JAMA Intern Med. 2019;

179:1084‐1093.

16. Irwin DE, Kopp ZS, Agatep B, Milsom I, Abrams P. Worldwide prevalence estimates of lower urinary tract symptoms, over-active bladder, urinary incontinence and bladder outlet

obstruction. BJU Int. 2011;108(7):1132‐1138.

17. Milsom I, Coyne KS, Nicholson S, Kvasz M, Chen CI, et al. Global prevalence and economic burden of urgency urinary incontinence:

a systematic review. Eur Urol. 2014;65(1):79‐95.

18. Blok B, Van Kerrebroeck P, de Wachter S, Ruffion A, Van der Aa F, et al. A prospective, multicenter study of a novel, miniaturized rechargeable sacral neuromodulation system: 12‐month results from the RELAX‐OAB study. Neurourol

Urodyn. 2019;38(2):689‐695.

S U P P O R T I N G I N F O R M A T I O N

Additional supporting information may be found online in the Supporting Information section.

How to cite this article: Benson K, McCrery R, Taylor C, et al. One‐year outcomes of the

ARTISAN‐SNM study with the Axonics System for

the treatment of urinary urgency incontinence. Neurourology and Urodynamics. 2020;1–7. https://doi.org/10.1002/nau.24376